› ›

What next for Madeleine Swann

1…91011121315»

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Or they could go down the Tiffany Case route (literary character) and say she found new love with someone else and left Bond, which he talks very little about, if at all. I'd be okay with that.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,890
    So you don't mind borrowing from the books but taking an idea from a previous Bond film is unacceptable? Madeleine getting shot would be a fine homage to Tracy, as long as it isn't exactly like it was in OHMSS.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2017 Posts: 15,423
    No, I'm fine with taking any ideas from the books. But, with Madeleine being killed and Bond losing a loved one for the third time and mourning their deaths in a five film tenure is asking for nothing but for unoriginal and overtly tired story cliche which labels the Craig era as the most depressing time span in the Bond film franchise. That's what I am strongly opposed to.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    And the Tiffany Case route IS Fleming AND given Madeleine's background would fit the character beautifully.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And the Tiffany Case route IS Fleming AND given Madeleine's background would fit the character beautifully.
    Thank you!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    I will also add: it is unused Fleming material. Unlike the tragic death of Tracy or Vesper.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,985
    Getting shot in the head unfortunately
  • LegionnaireLegionnaire
    Posts: 142
    As much as I don’t want to see Dr. Madeline Swann back.
    Opening Scene:
    Black and White scenario:
    Pre-title sequence:
    We see Bond driving away from a grave stone reveled to be that of Dr. Madeline Swann.
    Flash Back: (Black and White cont.)
    As Bond is driving away from the cemetery and leaving Swann’s gravesite, we see Bond fighting his way into a brothel in an unnamed Eastern European country where he finds a nearly nude Dr. Swann, stripped of her clothing and dead on a mattress on the floor from a drug overdose. A tourniquet and syringe with a used spoon on the floor nearby.
    In this black and white flash back that Bond is having, we see interspersed with him fighting his way into the building, that Swann is kidnapped and then sold into slavery, where she soon dies, leaving only a diary for Bond to find. In it he discovers that she was captured by one of Bloefelds agents and sold to a organized crime kingpin who’s specialty is in marketing illegal organs, trafficking women and selling drugs.
    Bloefeld is still in the Tower of London (or wherever top tier criminals and terrorist are sent), but perhaps still directing operations of his now fractured Spectre organization, even from prison.
    End of pre-title sequence.
    Title Sequence etc.
    The movie now begins with Bond as usual taking on some megalomaniac madman who deals in death, destruction and corruption.


  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    I'd rather have Swann back over instead of Mendes.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,084
    I like Léa Seydoux. I like the Madeleine Swann character. But the same goes for the large majority of Bond girls and their actresses. There is zero reason to keep her for Bond 25 even if they do not even mention what happened to her. Gone. Like almost all the others. Fine with me.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I will also add: it is unused Fleming material. Unlike the tragic death of Tracy or Vesper.
    Or M in Skyfall for the matter.
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I like Léa Seydoux. I like the Madeleine Swann character. But the same goes for the large majority of Bond girls and their actresses. There is zero reason to keep her for Bond 25 even if they do not even mention what happened to her. Gone. Like almost all the others. Fine with me.
    It should be that.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    That is one thing I love about the novels that I think would be nice to use in the movies: at least for some of the Bond girls you have a vague idea of what happens to them after the story is over.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I will also add: it is unused Fleming material. Unlike the tragic death of Tracy or Vesper.
    Or M in Skyfall for the matter.

    Fleming never kills off M.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I will also add: it is unused Fleming material. Unlike the tragic death of Tracy or Vesper.
    Or M in Skyfall for the matter.

    Fleming never kills off M.
    Never said that's a Fleming thing. I related it to the overtly tired and weak tragic deaths of loved ones to stir Bond emotionally which is already beyond exhaustion for the franchise itself. Fleming had two of these elements only, and in the cycle of eleven books. We're about to have three deaths of loved ones, if Eon does the Tracy thing, in the cycle of five films. What next? Bond wanting to let go of life because he's emotionally wrecked and everyone around him has to die?

    And the killing of M in Skyfall was an absurdity and out of relevance. An enforced idea. If only I could scrap that entire film out of existence...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2017 Posts: 6,382
    A throwaway line from Bond about Swann might work, if it's done in the "avoidance" style of Moore in TSWLM ("All right, you've made your point.") and even Brosnan's non-reaction in TWINE ("Have you ever lost a loved one, Mr. Bond?").
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    As in FRWL (Tiffany Case) the novel she doesn't even need to feature. They split up. End of.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I will also add: it is unused Fleming material. Unlike the tragic death of Tracy or Vesper.
    Or M in Skyfall for the matter.

    Fleming never kills off M.

    Actually Fleming sort of did: in TMWTGG it is mentioned that M's predecessor was murdered and in his office.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Good catch.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    SF is very influenced by TMWTGG. Not sure if it's on purpose or not but there's a lot of Gun in it.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    To me, the problem with blotting out Madeleine with a throwaway line is that it completely undermines the last act of SP. Granted, I have many issues with the storyline of SP, but this would make it even worse. They made such a big deal out of Bond choosing to walk away from MI6 to be with her that I don't think we can just jettison this idea without making a complete laughing out of SP in the process. Perhaps that's what some of you want, I don't know.

    Of course people break up and fall out of love all the time and I'm not saying this wouldn't happen with Bond and Madeleine. It's just that SP wants us to believe (and many of you think it fails miserably) that she is so much more than just another Bond girl. There's the implication that she is the only one who could possibly understand Bond because she is the daughter of an assassin. She even tells Bond that she loves him, although it was during an extremely stressful moment. She basically gives Bond an ultimatum to choose between her or his job and of course he chose her.

    So now, if a fifth Craig film happens and we just basically ignore her, the ending of SP will be even more stupid than it already is. Again, maybe that's what some of you want, to basically wipe this film out of existence. I can't say that I entirely blame you but I think it would actually make more sense to just end Craig's tenure here. He's made his choice to walk away from this dangerous lifestyle. He finally gets the girl at the end and they ride off happily ever after. Let's just leave it at that.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,084
    pachazo wrote: »
    To me, the problem with blotting out Madeleine with a throwaway line is that it completely undermines the last act of SP. ... It's just that SP wants us to believe (and many of you think it fails miserably) that she is so much more than just another Bond girl. There's the implication that she is the only one who could possibly understand Bond because she is the daughter of an assassin. She even tells Bond that she loves him, although it was during an extremely stressful moment. She basically gives Bond an ultimatum to choose between her or his job and of course he chose her.
    I must admit that, having watched SP twice so far (didn't really feel like having a third viewing for the time being), I failed to determine that special (shall I say:) bond going beyond the usual Bond/Bond Girl relationship between the two. I wouldn't feel betrayed in any way if they just forgot about it in the next movie. Maddie is just another Bond Girl, no more. Let's treat her like that.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    MrKissKissBangBang wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    To me, the problem with blotting out Madeleine with a throwaway line is that it completely undermines the last act of SP.

    Stopped reading at this point. There are several contributing factors that already undermine the final act of SP. One can't seriously analyse this type of film in the length you have to find reasoning and logic behind the decisions made here.
    You're welcome to stop reading all of my posts from here on out. ;)
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    To me, the problem with blotting out Madeleine with a throwaway line is that it completely undermines the last act of SP. ... It's just that SP wants us to believe (and many of you think it fails miserably) that she is so much more than just another Bond girl. There's the implication that she is the only one who could possibly understand Bond because she is the daughter of an assassin. She even tells Bond that she loves him, although it was during an extremely stressful moment. She basically gives Bond an ultimatum to choose between her or his job and of course he chose her.
    I must admit that, having watched SP twice so far (didn't really feel like having a third viewing for the time being), I failed to determine that special (shall I say:) bond going beyond the usual Bond/Bond Girl relationship between the two. I wouldn't feel betrayed in any way if they just forgot about it in the next movie. Maddie is just another Bond Girl, no more. Let's treat her like that.

    The difference though is that Bond doesn't make a life changing decision to be with the girl at the end of most Bond movies.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,890
    +1 pachazo
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,084
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    +1 pachazo
    Bond's decisions to quit working for the service are a dime a dozen by now. I don't take any of them serious, and they're completely irrelevant to the continuity of the series.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,890
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    +1 pachazo
    I don't take any of them serious
    Nor should you.
Sign In or Register to comment.